Loading...
Minutes - 11/15/2004 - Plan CommissionMINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 15, 2004 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK APPROVED AS AMENDED ON DECEMBER 13, 2004. 1. CALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Plan Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Payovich in the Samuel E. Dean Board Room of the Butler Government Center at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL Gail Polanek called the roll with the following persons PRESENT: Chairwoman Barbara Payovich, Members Paul Adrian, David Braune, Jeffrey Bulin, Marcia Tropinski and Gerald Wolin. ABSENT: Member Surendra Goel. IN ATTENDANCE: Robert L. Kallien, Director of Community Development and Dale L. Durfey, Village Engineer. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES The minutes were not submitted for approval 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS Chairwoman Payovich rearranged the agenda items with the Commissioners approval. 4. A. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT VOB - TEXT AMENDMENTS - - TEXT AMENDMENTS — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE — zO -ADD CHAP Is ZONING ORDINANCE — ADD CHAPTER 15 — TREE PRESERVATION - TREE PRESERVATION REGULATIONS REGULATIONS Chairwoman Payovich requested a motion to continue the matter to the next Plan Commission meeting. There will be discussion on the matter at that time. Motion by Member Braune, seconded by Member Wolin to continue the hearing on the Tree Preservation Regulations matter to the next Plan Commission on December 13, 2004. Ayes: 6 — Members Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Absent: 1 — Goel. Motion Carried VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 of 15 November 15, 2004 B. REFLECTION CIRCLE SUBDIVISION f /k /a FALCO SUBDIVISION — 2901 OAK BROOK ROAD — PRELIMINARY PLAT — THREE -LOT SUBDIVISION Director of Community Development Kallien briefly reviewed the proposal and the current status of the Plan Commission's review. At the last meeting there were a number of issues that required further review. The applicant has submitted additional documentation on pages 36 (Exhibit 2 - top of foundation of existing buildings) and 37 (Exhibit 1 design of the pond area and retaining walls) in the case file. Jim Flowers stated that he represented the property owner and introduced Robert Olson from the Olson Design Group. Mr. Flowers reviewed page 37 of the case file. They have provided some visuals of an anticipated scheme of the pond as well as retaining walls. There was a concern that the water was too close to the home, so they provided an image of a home in Old Oak Brook that sits quite nicely next to a pond that is used for retaining water. Several other pictures show winter and summer schemes. It is impossible to show a rendering of how the houses would look from the street, and it is far too expensive to do. It appeared that the biggest issue for the Plan Commission was the retaining walls and that there was a lack of visualization prepared. They believe what has now been provided sufficiently shows images of how the retaining walls would look like. He said that Page 38 of the case file clearly identifies the top of foundation for the surrounding homes and 31 St Street. They are dealing with 2 different constraints on the property. The existing elevation on the street is 699 and the existing elevation of the Falco home is 714. They have to be able to get to the Falco home from the street at a reasonable increase in elevation. They believe they have accommodated that with the minimal street elevation of 705, and a reasonable incline has been provided with sufficient area for yard space and other amenities the homeowner may like to have on the property. The top of foundation of the other homes shows that they are not outside the extremes of any of the surrounding properties in the area. Member Wolin said that at the last meeting one of his concerns was that the entire backyard of the two homes is entirely a detention area. He asked if there were any other similar properties that have been approved in the past. He added that the big pond in the center is not the most aesthetic feature and he still has concerns with the steep drop off into the detention pond. Village Engineer Durfey said that he did not know of any similar properties off hand, however, that did not mean that there are none in existence. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 15 November 15, 2004 REFLECTION CIRCLE SUB — f/k /a FALCO SUB — 2901 OAK BROOK RD — PRELIMINARY PLAT — 3 -LOT SUB Robert Olson said that they have been involved in the design and engineering for a number of subdivisions in Oak Brook such as Forest Glen, Trinity Lakes, Saddle Brook, Heritage Oaks, and Old Brook. As to existing rear yard detention in Oak Brook, there are 5 lots in Old Oak Brook and 2 lots in Heritage Oaks. It is a common practice and is a very aesthetic situation for the homeowner whether dry or wet; and it should be left up to the individual homeowner. From an engineering and landscape standpoint it is a very common situation and it exists in Oak Brook. He offered to point out some of the lots. Chairwoman Payovich asked how close the detention pond comes to the back of the homes in Old Oak Brook. Mr. Olson responded about 20 feet and said that are four others in the interior of the Old Oak Brook area. Member Braune asked if the detention ponds were part of the owner's property. Mr. Olson responded that they were. Mr. Flowers said the properties in Old Oak Brook are wet basin and have water in them all the time. The rears of the properties are dry detention basins and would only accumulate water in the event of heavy rain. There is also drainage inside the center so that as water accumulates in the ponds, when the rain stops the water would then dissipate off into the main pond at the most eastern portion of the property. Chairwoman Payovich asked how steep the grade was in the rear of the properties. Mr. Olson responded 33 %. Mr. Flowers noted that a cantilever deck could be placed in the rear of the homes. A plat was passed around for the members to review. Mr. Olson answered their questions as they reviewed the plat and an aerial view of Old Oak Brook. Member Braune questioned that if the plan were approved and the homeowner wanted to add a deck, would there be a problem to add a structure into the rear? Village Engineer Durfey responded that a deck could be built over the detention basin, however, they could not do any additional building. Director of Community Development Kallien said that no other structure could be added in the rear yard because it is a detention basin. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 15 November 15, 2004 Village Engineer Durfey said that there is 8 feet horizontal prior to the detention area. Mr. Flowers said that they are trying to create something that is not going to stand out like a sore thumb. They have a walkout basement in the rear which puts it at a reasonable elevation for the homeowner to be able to utilize the rear area of the yard. There are options for the homeowner to put in a retaining wall at the rear and a deck could be added over the detention area, which would provide more usable space outside the home. Chairwoman Payovich asked how far the flat surface would go out into the rear yard from the back of the home. Mr. Flowers responded approximately 20 feet. Mr. Olson said that they are showing the pad area, which is much larger than the house may be. Director of Community Development Kallien asked how high the retaining wall would be and noted that there are no details as to what the wall would look like. Mr. Flowers said it would be a five -foot wall. He said that the wall would depend upon what the homeowner would like to do. Director of Community Development Kallien said that Forest Gate Subdivision has changed the rules for anyone that wants to put up a wall. The Village has not approved any recent developments without seeing the wall details. Mr. Flowers said that perhaps he does not understand what is being requested in wall details. He said that they have provided pictures and the engineering which stipulates where they will go. Beyond that it is a structural issue and would go to a structural engineer once they know the plan is approvable. Mr. Olson said that they understand that, but they are not yet at that stage. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the last two projects with wall issues was a 7 -lot Subdivision off Harger Road and as part of their preliminary plat they had to show the Village Board what the wall was going to look like. The Sue Boon Subdivision off of York Road also had to show what the wall was going to look like and the detention facilities on those lots were not as extensive as these. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 of 15 November 15, 2004 Mr. Olson said that they have tried to show these by way of photographs and examples. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the applicant has tried to show what they want to do. And in their opinion, they did it as well as they could. However, when it goes to the Village Board they may be requested to show them more. Mr. Olson said that they would bring in the brick wall. Member Adrian said that he is concerned about what appears to be a buildup of land underneath the house. It appears they are changing the lay of the land and then build the house on top of that. Village Engineer Durfey responded that the detention basin or flood plain elevation whatever the high water level is by Code, the lowest floor or the opening to the house next to it must be two feet above it. That is why they are at 701.4 for their proposed walkout basement. The issue that was raised in his memo was speaking more to the front of the house where it is filled in the 8 to 9 feet additional to get to the first floor elevation. Their proposed plan shows a portion of the street at 705. Oak Brook Road is at 699, so the 705 does not necessarily have to be that high, and so the first floor at 709.4 does not need necessarily need to be that high. Chairwoman Payovich said that the existing house is at 714, so is there a reason that the proposed homes need to be built up to those elevations as described by the applicant. Village Engineer Durfey said that the developer would like to build it up; in his memo he stated that might not be appropriate. Member Braune asked in the terms of access to Mr. Falco's property, if the roads were lower, what would that mean to the access to his property. Mr. Olson responded that it harms it. From an engineering standpoint that was the highest elevation that could be achieved on the property. He said that you have to back it off to Oak Brook Road. They tried to do a constant grade from that elevation down to Oak Brook Road. Mr. Flowers said that the home is at 714 and the road is at 705, so that is a 9 foot difference already, lowering the road would only increase that and would put what would appear to be a solid wall in front of his house as a retaining wall. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 of 15 November 15, 2004 Member Bulin said that he has previously addressed his concerns over the center bathtub. The original drawings indicate two levels of retaining wall and then there is a drop, then a safety ledge and another 5 -foot drop to where the water area was before. How did the elevation change to achieve the pond look. Mr. Flowers responded that they had previously over compensated by having all water in the pond. By utilizing the two separate ponds they addressed Member Tropinski's concerns of having all water in that area. By reducing the amount of water and providing a safety area, which would then be grass and a somewhat landscaped area, provided an answer to her concerns as well as minimizing the impact of the water retention on the area. The current pond is only 4 or 5 feet deep. Member Bulin said that his concern is the driveway with the wood barrier, then a drop off down to the vegetated ledge then another drop off to the other landscaped area. It seems to be such a harsh edge to the drive. Is there a way to get some green space between the drive and drop off /barrier. It does not have to be all the way around. Providing, barrier green space, barrier, to change the bathtub look, which is similar as to what is at Forest Gate. Mr. Olson said that from a landscape standpoint they were looking at a two - tiered wall, plantings up on top and in between could be vines spilling over to make a landscape statement to break it up. Member Bulin said that it is the continuous aspect of the wall from around the horseshoe to the back and not being able to break it up with some extended areas. The values for retention have precluded being able to give up some of the area. Mr. Flowers said that the two areas are segregated one is compensation one is retention and there is nothing they can do to change the amount of compensation required. Member Bulin said that as this moves forward they may be able to finalize some of these problems, but there are so many vague issues including the walls, the design, and the elevations. There is nothing comprehensive in the whole package to give them one elevation or rendering or drawing. Chairwoman Payovich asked if the compensation numbers had been finalized for the center pond. Village Engineer Durfey said that the calculations that had been submitted were reviewed by the consulting engineering and the conclusion was that when it went to final design it can meet the Ordinance. So there is a little bit of give VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 of 15 November 15, 2004 and play. They did not supply final numbers, so they could not be reviewed; but for preliminary plat analysis it was sufficient. Member Braune said that on page 37 it appears there is a 4 foot wall there, how is equipment brought in to maintain that area. Mr. Flowers said that there would be a grass ramp built to allow for equipment to get down there. It is not going to have an impact, because it would be the homeowner's responsibility. They do not know whether there would be a requirement until they move the project forward. Member Bulin said that it could be a grass ramp that would run along the side of the wall. There are things being told, but there is not a cohesive drawing and the applicant does not want to prepare a complete package not knowing if it is going to go forward, but again it makes it difficult to approve something when there are so many unknown factors. Mr. Flowers said that they are puzzled because the Commission is asking them to do things, not knowing that it would be approved, and the things being asked are all based on final plat approval. They are seeking preliminary approval and have gone significantly beyond what is required. They have provided what is required under the requirements for preliminary approval. Director of Community Development Kallien said that we are making an assumption on what the Village Board may or may not do. The Plan Commission has to make a decision. If they feel this is all the materials they are going to get from the applicant, then move it out and see what the Village Board does. If the Village Board feels there is a lack of clarification they can request it from the applicant at that time or send it back to the Plan Commission. When you look at the requirements in the codes and ordinances they are pretty basic and very similar to other communities. One section of the regulations that he is concerned with is the movement of dirt. He said that Member Wolin raised that issue at the last meeting. In some degrees they comply with the code and with others they do not. The wall is an issue that is a by- product of a previous developer and the Trustees are now looking at that. Maybe the applicant can convince them that there are adequate details and that at the time of final plat certain things would have to be provided. Chairwoman Payovich said that the applicant has indicated that if they felt the Commission was going to move this forward they would be willing to invest the time and provide more details. However, if it is going to be denied based on what they feel and believe is the issue of grading and movement of dirt, then there is no sense in asking the applicant to come back with more details. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 of 15 November 15, 2004 Member Wolin said that he agrees with Chairwoman Payovich and it was his personal opinion that he is not in favor of voting for this. He said that as in Bob's memo it states that the proposed subdivision does not completely satisfy all the requirements for a preliminary plat of subdivision as contained in the Village of Oak Brook Subdivision Regulations. In particular the extensive regrading of the property appears to contradict Section 14 -6 -2 Topography of the Subdivision Regulations which states that, "In the subdivision of any lands due regard shall be shown for all natural features such as large trees, water courses, topography and other elements which, if preserved, would add attractiveness to the proposed development." He said that by having a bathtub in the center and detention ponds when you walk out the back door is not consistent with the Ordinance. Based on what he has heard, providing additional details would not make him vote for it. Member Bulin said that he supports Member Wolin and that the plan is objectionable and does not satisfy the Ordinance. Member Tropinski said that she also supports Member Wolin and Bulin and said that she was concerned previously about the slopes around the property and believes the developer has rendered the property unusable. The Trustees would want to see what the inside the bathtub would look like, with the walls and narrow canyon of concrete blocks. Even if you tried to screen it with vegetation, it is totally out of character for the area. Member Adrian asked if the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance been met, unequivocally? Village Engineer responded that they have not; in that they are seeking variations, such as to the dedicated right of way and private streets, which is not uncommon. It is a technically detail that they are not complying with, that could be okay if a private street were allowed. There are also drafting revisions needed. Director of Community Development Kallien said that relative to terrain and topography the Ordinance does not provide guidance as to the amount of variation that can be used; it is really subjective and you have to look at what the byproduct is. In this case they are providing some very definitive look as to what the interior water feature would have to look like. It is going to be substantial. Does it meet the test of what is reasonable and what the greater community wants; again, that is a subjective thing. Ultimately the Village Board will have to decide that. Member Braune said he cannot fault the applicant for the energy they have put into this, but he has the sense of massive sterility in the center pond, no matter VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 of 15 November 15, 2004 how it is shielded it is going to be overwhelming. He is very concerned about the necessity of moving all that dirt around. He said that he had asked to see something that would give them some indication of what the whole thing would look like and he understands the economics of it, but he is having trouble that this would be aesthetically pleasing while watching what is going on down the street. He is concerned that this is going to standout, but not in a positive sense. He cannot tell what it would look like so he would have to take at the least a neutral stance. If they tried to move this forward there would need to be stipulation after stipulation made to cover every concern, is not a good practice. Director of Community Development Kallien said that the Plan Commission's role is to provide advice to the Village Board relative to the Ordinances. Member Wolin said that he believes the prudent thing to do would be to deny the request. The applicant would be able to appear before the Village Board and if they are happy with what the applicant presents that is up to them. Chairwoman Payovich said that her concerns are about the movement of the dirt and the lack of specific design elements, simply because of things they have been through in the past. She is not pleased where it is at right now. She understands the applicant not wanting to invest additional money, not knowing where it is going to go. The applicant can go before the Village Board and address the specific issues of the Plan Commission. Member Adrian said that he is trying to balance what his personal opinion is of this project versus have they met the requirements of the Village Ordinance. He does not like micro management when it comes to a project like this. He is not design oriented as some of the other members and they must have a better view of what it would look like. With the pieces he has it is difficult for him to put together. He is not so inclined to deny, as he is to abstain, because he would like more information and he is not going to get it. Director of Community Development Kallien said that one of the difficulties is that the preliminary plat has significant importance, because whatever is approved on the preliminary plat and the applicant submits something in substantial compliance with that for the final plat the Village Board would approve it. There is not a lot of leeway. The Village Board has expressed the desire for some of these details. We are dealing with a concept that goes beyond this point. Member Adrian said that he is trying to see if it fits into what they are supposed to be looking at. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 of 15 November 15, 2004 Member Tropinski said that she has a concern for safety. Member Wolin said that he is not sure additional details would change his mind. However, he does have an open mind. Several people have expressed an opinion that additional material might make them feel differently. He would respect the applicant in what they have spent and would be willing to continue it. Mr. Flowers said that everyone has an opinion of the project and some are questioning the viability of the project and some questioning their interpretation of how it would look in the end. The bottom line comes to some very important things. Did they meet the requirements for approval of a subdivision; and did they meet the requirements for the development of the additional properties? They believe they have done that. Beyond that it becomes a matter of perspective. Member Bulin could design a landscape plan and each member may or may not like what he has done. They have not taken the time to go into extensive landscape details because they do not feel it is appropriate at this time. This is a conceptual phase. They believe that the Plan Commission is being asked to vote on whether or not they have met the criteria for subdivision, which they believe they have done. If the Plan Commission is going to deny the request then they need to be very specific as to what limit has failed its passing. Village Engineer Durfey has brought up the issue of private streets and they do not believe that is an issue, because they have seen it in the past in other circumstances. If the Village would like to see it as a public street, then they would have ways of accommodating that and would provide them with the necessary easements and right of way. They believe that the property is conducive to this development and would provide a very aesthetically appealing view and image from any angle from the street or the yards. They believe the final opinion of the homes is that of the homeowners. They would not buy them if they do not like them. They are taking all the financial risk for this project. The board is not at any financial risk or in any situation of encumbering themselves for this project. You cannot impose your opinion on someone else by liking or disliking of a property. All they have heard is that the board wants more; when they provide it they hear that the board wants more again. What they need is a decision based on whether it meets the criteria of a subdivision. In regards to the section of the regulations regarding moving earth. The amount of earthwork being done is because it is being required by the County, which then imposes on the city for water compensation and water detention. These are not their choices; it is what is being imposed upon them. They believe they have met all the requirements for water compensation and water detention on the property. They have addressed the water flow on adjacent properties and brought the water onto their property, which is significant. Because they are bringing it onto their property they have had to enlarge the compensation and detention areas. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 of 15 November 15, 2004 Every time a requirement is imposed upon them it requires them to deepen the wall structures or enlarge the basin area. Something is being done to minimize the usable amount of land they have. They have met the requirements. Aside from anyone's personal opinion they ask that the plan be approved based on its merits of meeting all of the criteria for subdivision. He thanked the commissioners. Director of Community Development Kallien said that there are good points made. He said that we are expressing our opinion that is correct. That is one of the reasons for having the Plan Commission is supposed to provide its input as residents of the community to the Village Board. Mr. Flowers said that the point being made is whether they have met the criteria for a subdivision and they believe they have. Furthermore, he believes everyone needs to take a step back and look at the requirements that have been imposed upon them and perhaps appreciate what they have gone through to accommodate all the requirements that have been imposed upon them. They have come up with what they believe is a very aesthetically pleasing design based on the requirements that have been imposed upon them. They have thought about all of the possibilities and have evaluated almost every possibility to accommodate the requirements. He is perplexed to try to understand what more could be seen on the issue of the retaining walls. He cannot imagine what more they would be looking at in terms of the walls. Pictures have been provided of a two - tiered retaining wall. He does not know what more they could be looking at other than a cut -away, which would be hand drawing. He believes everyone would know what a concrete retaining block looks like as well as the earth behind it. He felt it was somewhat rudimentary to provide what the Commission should know about, especially Member Bulin and Tropinski. They believe they have met all the requirements for a subdivision, with the exception to the private street as mentioned by Village Engineer Durfey, which has been granted and approved on several other occasions. Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed Section 14 -6 -2 of the Subdivision Regulations which states, "Topography. 1. In the subdivision of any lands, due regard shall be shown for all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, topography and other elements which, if preserved, would add attractiveness to the proposed development. 2. Consideration should be given to varying the building setback lines for a subdivision in order to retain large trees, use existing topography, and add variety of appearance. 3. Land that is subject to periodic flooding cannot be developed unless it VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 of 15 November 15, 2004 complies with the standards established in subsection 14- 3 -3C9* of this title. ( *which refers to stormwater) 4. No construction shall take place within the areas subject to flooding as depicted upon the flood hazard maps, except where appropriate exhibits and documents are prepared..." Director of Community Development Kallien said that these are some of the key elements that relate to the discussion. There has been a conscious effort to keep excavated soil on site. If it were not on site, would that change the look and feel of the development? It would certainly have an impact if some of the soil was not retained. Mr. Flowers responded that keep in mind that if the soil was not retained, it does not change the fact that the street level is at 705. Director of Community Development Kallien said that it would alter the building pads. Mr. Flowers responded that the front elevation is 709 which is only 4 feet, so it would not change it very much. They could leave the road at 705 and the drive up to the house only at 706, allowing only a 1 foot incline and allowing for a 3 foot step to the front door of the home. That is entirely possible, but they believe that to be part of the development of the individual home rather than this phase. They cannot go below the 705 which is the area of concern. They are not raising the pads unnecessarily. In fact the pads are at 701.4 with the top of foundation being raised at the front of the house to accommodate the height of the road at the front. They believe it necessary to do that in order to accommodate a reasonably acceptable appearance coming out of Mr. Falco's house at 714 elevation top of elevation. They did try to address keeping the earth on site, that comes as a by- product being concerned about environmental impact and trying to utilize it to sculpt the land in the area to provide a more natural grade than sharp drop offs. Member Wolin said that he brought up Section 14 -6 -2 and it summarizes his comments. He agrees with Director of Community Development Kallien that it is a very subjective thing and in he believes that it does not meet the Subdivision Ordinance. He said that if anyone on the Board feels it meets the requirements they could make a motion to approve it. No one responded. Motion by Member Wolin, seconded by Member Braune to recommend a denial of the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision for the Reflection Circle Subdivision f /k /a Falco Subdivision as requested. The basis for the recommendation is as follows: VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 12 of 15 November 15, 2004 I . The proposed subdivision does not completely satisfy all requirements for a preliminary plat of subdivision as contained in the Village of Oak Brook Subdivision Regulations. In particular, the extensive regrading of the property appears to contradict Section 14 -6 -2, Topography of the Subdivision Regulations which states that, "in the subdivision of any lands due regard shall be shown for all natural features such as large trees, water courses, topography and other elements which, if preserved, would add attractiveness to the proposed development." 2. The final design of the central water feature located on the north side of lot 1 and it has not been finalized. There are safety and aesthetic concerns with the design. The "bath -tub" look provided in one of the alternative designs may be viewed by some to be "out of character" with the neighborhood. 3. Even though the proposed 3 -lot subdivision creates individual lots that conform to the underlying zoning district of R -2, the two lots for new single - family homes provide no room for typical amenities (i.e. swimming pool, landscaped gardens, accessory structures, etc.). 4. The design of the proposed subdivision is not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. In particular, the proposed grading will allow the two new homes that will ultimately be built to be significantly taller than if existing grades were utilized. 5. As requested by the Commission, the applicant has not provided a rendering /drawing, which shows how the property and future improvements including how the homes will visually look from an off -site perspective. 6. The final wall details have not been provided at this time. 7. The items contained in Village Engineer Durfey's letter dated September 13, 2004 (page 22 of the case file) ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 — Members Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Absent: 1 — Member Goel. Motion Carried 5. NEW BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 5. A. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK — TITLE 13 OF THE VILLAGE CODE - v013 - zO-TEXT ZONING ORDINANCE — TEXT' AMENDMENT — CHAPTER 12 — OFF 122 -ES CT ON 12 -4 -C STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS —AMEND SECTION INTERIOR PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING 12 -4 -C INTERIOR PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 13 of 15 November 15, 2004 Director of Community Development Kallien told the Plan Commission that Staff discovered this item during the plan review of the parking lots for the McDonald's project. He said that the Code was written in Section 13- 12- 4 -C.3. as follows: "In parking areas which are wider than one bay of double parking, interior shade trees shall be planted with a maximum spacing of forty feet (40'), provided that at least one tree is located in the area occupied by every fifteen (15) interior parking spaces." He said that Village Engineer Durfey agrees that the spacing of "40 feet" and "every 15 spaces" contradicts one another. In the McDonald's proposal it would mean there would be one tree placed every 15 parking spaces. It also states that there should be a tree every forty feet, does that mean that trees should be placed randomly in the parking area. The proposed change was made for clarification. They discussed the proposed change with the Village Attorney and he agreed with what they are trying to accomplish. The next time this happens there will not be any ambiguity or contradiction with the revised language. Member Braune requested an explanation. Director of Community Development Kallien said that if there are horizontal spaces every 15 spaces you would have a landscaped area with trees and vegetation, which they believe is more than reasonable. With the additional standard of requiring a tree every 40 feet, there will be trees all over the place. Motion by Member Bulin seconded by Member Adrian to recommend approval of the request from the Village of Oak Brook, to amend 13- 12 -4 -C.3 to delete the following words. "with a maximum spacing of forty feet (40') ". The Plan Commission found that the request is reasonable and avoids contradiction in the Ordinance. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: 6 — Members Adrian, Braune, Bulin, Tropinski, Wolin and Chairwoman Payovich Nays: 0 — None. Absent: 1 — Member Goel. Motion Carried 6. OTHER BUSINESS Director of Community Development Kallien reviewed possible future cases that may brought before the Plan Commission. There may be a request for a drive - through bank. Also, it was noted in the newspaper that there may be a new development along Butterfield Road and there would be requirements possibly for subdivision, rezoning, text amendments, variations and storm water issues. VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 14 of 15 November 15, 2004 OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to discuss. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Member Braune, seconded by Member Bulin to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. VOICE VOTE: Motion carried. ATTEST: Robert L. Kallien, Jr. Robert Kallien, Director of Community Development Secretary VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK Plan Commission Minutes Page 15 of 15 November 15, 2004 ADJOURMENT